User talk:Islander/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

BBC Children's/Toobylim

Hi. I created Toobylim as a sort of sandbox - sorry for making that, I should of deleted it before hand.

But, I do feel that the BBC Children's article should have the content I had on it, as BBC Children's is not just CBBC, it is also CBeebies and BBC Switch, a new service starting in two weeks. The BBC Children's department needs a proper article, not just a redirect to CBBC.

• Petedude72 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC Childrens' department is called Childrens' BBC, CBBC. CBBC is the overall department, of which CBeebies and soon BBC Switch are a part; they are not separate entities. I agree that more info needs to be included on wikipedia about this department, but the location of this information is the CBBC article, where it belongs, not a separate article. _TheIslander 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oucho.png

I uploaded this image with a Fair Use Rationale template which you didn't dispute in your 9th October edit. I think the image should stay because both Ed and Oucho are very popular presenters on the CBBC channel and there is no way a "free" image of them could possibly be obtained. I hope you agree that it's ok to keep. Look forward to hearing from you. Damson88 18:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

9th October edit? Hmm, can't remember that, nor can I see anything like that in my contributions or the history for the picture. The problem here is that it is possible to take a picture of Ed Petrie that won't need any fair-use claims. Pictures on biographical articles tend to be frowned upon for this very reason. Also, Oucho isn't relevant to that article. It is for these reasons that I dispute the fair-use claim - sorry. _TheIslander 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say 6th October. I've added information about Oucho, as he co-presents with Ed Petrie on the CBBC Channel. Damson88 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, right. Well, bearing in mind that I was only reverting vandalism, I didn't really look at the rest of the article. I'm affraid my point of view still stands. If you think it'll be alright, then fine - after the deadline, a sysop will take a look at it and delete it if they feel it warrents it, or not if they don't. _TheIslander 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd still be in favour of retaining the picture. Firstly remember that Ed only became really famous after he started presenting on CBBC on 3 September 2007. And he has always been a co-presenter. Last week, for example, he was seen taking a BBC presenters' exam. Oucho was his mentor with two stars to Ed's one. The two have more or less equal staus on CBBC and that's why I created the Oucho redirect on 15 October. If you prefer I could remove the redirect and create a separate article for Oucho (see similar example Edd the Duck). I have collected quite a lot of facts about Oucho and it seems he has a lot of fans.

You said earlier that a free picture of Ed Petrie could be obtained, but bearing in mind that he's half of a double-act I dont believe a suitable free picture of Ed and Oucho could be found anywhere. Damson88 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Behringer

I noticed your revert to this article which was fair. I've tried again to put in a more neutral explanation and cited 4 examples of discussion/dispute over the topic. I don't want to support either side (I have too little info) but it is important info as it exists as a heated debate involving many people in the live sound world. Please let me know if the new version is satisfactory, and if not tell me what I could do to make it fit within policy. Thanks, 48v 06:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The new version is much better :). It's fairly neutral (as neutral as anything under a 'critisism' heading can be), and is well sourced by the two sources I've left up. Unfortunatly I did remove two of the sources, as they cite forums, which aren't particularly reputable as sources, but other than that, 'tis good. _TheIslander 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There was another reversion by somebody who did not think my sources stood up, so I have raised the source count to 12 (none of which, I think, are forums.) Please give me a heads up if you see anything objectionable in the new version (again.) 48v 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, all those sources seem to be fine :). _TheIslander 10:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

What do you think who you are? Speak with me but not in this way (sorry for my bad english) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.187.235 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You attacked another editor on their user page, thus I reverted your edit. Simple. _TheIslander 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not simple. DO you do what he has done? Please have a look on his german page.(archiv) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.187.235 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2007

I don't care what he's done, as whatever it is it does not warrent a personal attack. That is not how we work on Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:ATTACK. Also, please quit the excessive use of questionmarks. _TheIslander 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I use as many questionmarks as I like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.225.49 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2007

I would now like to speak to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.225.49 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead - I'm very happy to talk to you; I'm not going to watch you fill my talk page with punctuation and other nonsense. _TheIslander 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What has he done to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.98.50 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? _TheIslander 09:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can use as many questionmarks as I like. Whats wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.219.129 (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Last warning: next time you post a nonsense post on my talk page, you will be blocked. _TheIslander 11:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I only want to talk normaly with you about about our problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.225.145 (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cafezinho

Hi. I'm pretty sure of what I've done. I'm brazilian and I know what I'm talking about. 201.10.19.78 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

However, you've failed to read the rest of the article, and find out that in actual fact the article is about a chat show, and not what you're talking about. Also, your style of writing is not at all suitable for Wikipedia - please take a look at WP:MOS. _TheIslander 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were smart enough, would realize that I haven't write a line. It's an old text that I re-organized. And please, answer on my discussion page.201.10.19.78 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Brenda Song

I am sorry but i dont that my edits should be reverted because it has a listing of brenda's early work,the last version did not include brenda's early career.User talk:81.109.242.108 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.242.108 (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you're quite right. I'm very sorry for that revert, I shouldn't have done it. Appologies. _TheIslander 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ISIS neutron source

Hello, I noticed you've added the Research Facilities based in the UK to the bottom of the ISIS page. I wasn't sure how relevant that was to ISIS (or how complete). More relevant would be a link of World-wide neutron and muon sources. I notice the same thing is on the end of the Diamond page too - do you know where it came from? If it's something people think is useful and it's staying, shouldn't we include the other science research facilities like NMR also at RAL (I can't find a better link: http://www2.bioch.ox.ac.uk/~oubsu/)? There could be some argument to include the large scale computing like GRID - these are all funded as scientific research infrastructures (as are some museums and biological collections). I'm not so keen on the grid at all, but I'm aware that might be a personal thing... J bellingham 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I appologise for taking a while to reply. I added the Research Facilities template to the bottom of the ISIS as it is indeed a major research facility in the UK; the same is true of Diamond. Now, an article can always have more than one template, so if there is another suitable template, like you suggest, then please feel free to add it! As for including other facilities in the template, yes, they should be included if they have articles on Wikipedia. If they do, then please add them, or ask me to add them if you're not sure how. _TheIslander 11:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the delay - it was a weekend.  :) I have to admit I'm fairly new to editing wikipedia so I'm not sure how to add templates, but I think I'll leave it for a while. I'm more bothered with making sure the text is accurate. Once I'm happy with that I might move onto the embellishments! J bellingham 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

National Space Centre

Do you think the {{advert}} tag can go now? See Talk:National Space Centre. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Myst Online: Uru Live (Ages)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you meant by "images that are not correctly labeled." Did you mean that they didn't have proper rationales? The image Cleft-Areal.jpg has a fair-use rationale, so if you believe it to be incorrect, I'd like to fix it. Likewise, if I added rationales to the other two, would you find that acceptable? Conversely, if you meant the images themselves weren't labeled correctly within the gallery, I'd be happy to re-label them more appropriately. I'd appreciate an quick answer because these images are orphaned and they'll be deleted on the 11th. Thanks for your time. Joe 12:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You really need to take a look at WP:NFC - you should never upload anything without a detailed fair-use rationale, as without it the picture is a copyright violation. I personally don't think a gallery is needed there, and bear in mind that over-use of non-free media is prohibited, but if you feel it necessary, you need to at least give each and every picture a proper, thorough rationale. With the one rationale that you do have, you state that you have the permission of Ubisoft - how, exactly? I assume that you have a piece of paper stating this, 'else I'm affraid that no, you don't have permission -you need to find out the correct copyright boilerplate to use. Take a look at WP:C and WP:NFC. _TheIslander 13:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for your speedy response. Next, I agree, I should have uploaded those with a rationale attached. When I uploaded them I didn't even know what one was, and after I learned I kept neglecting to. I've added them to the images that had none. As far as permissions go, if you'll notice in the "Licensing" section, there is a template regarding that which has been on each images since their upload. I realize that it might be confusing if a reader misses the section though, so I've added links within the "Other Information" text. Finally, as far a over-use goes, I believe that these three images do not constitute over-use. There are at least 34 other distinct areas within the same Age as these three, and each of these three images illustrates the aesthetics attributed to each of the three main races in the Uru series (Bahro, Human, D'ni). In addition, the article that was once the main article of all 37 of these areas has been deleted and this article will likely replace it as the page to find information on these locations. As this is the case (even though there are numerous other images on the page), I believe that these three are just as necessary to illustrate the game's visual style as all of the other images are. Once again, thank you for your time. Joe 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair do's - just bear in mind that a picture uploaded without a rationale is likely to get deleted quicker than an orphaned one with a rationale. Next, you're quite right about the Ubisoft permission - having looked at it in more detail now, I understand. As for over-use, you're probably right, three's not too bad. It's just a matter of being careful - fair-use means exactly that: a fair amount of use for fair things. However, I certainly agree now that the current use is fair. The only other question I have to ask is about the cleft picture: is it a promo shot? 'Cause if not, it's blatently been taken with flymode enabled :P. There you have the tricky situation of flymode being a hack, and thoroughly against the ToS of the game, hence we decend once again into legal goo. I'm sure it could be replaced with an equally good screencap taken from the ground... _TheIslander 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know any hacks are violations of MO:UL's ToS, but I wasn't aware that they violated anything (save the warranty) from Uru Pime and PotS. Do you have a reference to check? If the images were of content not accessible in those games (views of behind the scenes stuff, like the Jalack blocks in MO:UL), I think I'd agree about it being "legally gooey;" but, since I only used FlyMode to get better angles of content readably visible I figured it would be okay. Plus, to illustrate (for example) The Cleft as well as the current image, I believe that maybe about three images would be required instead of one. What do you think? • Galimatias Joe • 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

Btw i know you deleted my fun house uk i'm not mad i just wanted to do it cause it only has a little mention of it on the american fun house page.

Could you help me i'm doing an infobox on a page about the cbbc show monster cafe the infobox dosen't seem to be apearing on the page so i wondered if you could help.

I know the page needs work but i'm editing it everyday

Jack haywood 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another RfA Spaming

Thank you for constructive criticism in my recent RFA which did not pass at (18/27/10). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait until someone nominates me next time. Thank you for you comments! Tiptoety 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

St. John Ambulance

Thank you for your kind comment. I am not an expert, but expect that parts of the article related to the Order could be trimmed. --Rumping 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Greenhouse effect

Thanks for catching the spelling error on "carbon dioxide" put please, please, please be careful not to re-introduce the error in converting celsius to fahrenheit as you did here.[1] It's a surprisingly common error, for example as discussed in this exchange. Raymond Arritt 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

RFU images

Most of the places where I removed images were from galleries and line-ups, which falls foul of the NFCC (#9). Besides that, thanks for the heads-up. 90.203.45.244 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Shalom's RfA

Nor replying at the RfA, as it's of no use. But: You gotta be kidding me. You said "I'm sorry, but in my mind never. As someone's said above, Wikipedia has plenty of admins and would-be admins that would never, ever even imagine vandalising, that there really is no need to sysop-ify a past vandal, even if they really have changed. I'm sorry Shalom, but this is one of the consequences of your past behaviour." And you said it in the face of the logical conclusion (drawn by others on the very same page) that you might very well be supporting if only he had not made the mistake of deciding to own up to his earlier mistakes. All you're effectively saying is that he should have lied. Congratulations, seriously. This is among the top 5 worst ever rationales I've seen in any RfA. |dorftrottel |talk 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Your rationale is so profoundly flawed on so many levels that I almost overlooked the most blatant insult of Wikipedia's collective intellect: You're essentially saying that Shalom should leave and return under a new username, and start lying to ever have the chance of becoming an admin. Make that top 3. |dorftrottel |talk 14:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive critisism ;). My stating that I don't trust someone who once was a vandal to be an admin does not equate to my stating that I would have prefered them to create a new account, and lie their way into adminship. I appologise if this is difficult for you to understand, but my personal view is that no one who once vandalised should have a chance of becoming an admin, whether they use the same account, a new account or whatever. Please take a look at WP:CIVIL, and try not to blindly attack others for opinions that differ from yours. _TheIslander 15:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But... can you imagine that someone may, as a consequence, reappear and become an admin in a dishonest way, precisely because you (and others) prefer to ignore even considerable personal progress to such a degree that you, as you said, would never support Shalom regardless of how much time passes with only good contribs on his part? This is contructive criticism, or at least it could be, depends largely on whether you are willing to recognise the gaping hole in your logic. |dorftrottel |talk 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Btw: I'm not attacking you, but your reasoning. There's an important difference.

I can indeed see where you're coming from, and I see the problem you're describing, but I disagree that my rationale has/will/could make it any worse. Your opinion seems to me (please correct me if I'm incorrect at all), to be that it's better for an ex-vandal to be honest in their RfA, and use their original account. I agree. You also seem to think that an ex-vandal could keep their history quiet, start a new account, and a few months later use that to go through an RfA, and possibly succeed. I agree, that's a possibility. Your opinion seems to be that the first option is much preferable to the second - once again, I agree. You seem to think that my opinion of "sorry, but as an ex-vandal you don't deserve sysop-ification" will encourage more of the second chain of events to occur than the first. Perhaps you are right, but unfortunatly in my view it's not at all reason for me to support. You talk of a gaping hole in my logic - unfortunatly I still don't see it. _TheIslander 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You just summarised it quite succinctly: You seem to think that my opinion of "sorry, but as an ex-vandal you don't deserve sysop-ification" will encourage more of the second chain of events to occur than the first. Perhaps you are right, --> here it is <-- but unfortunatly in my view it's not at all reason for me to support." Not saying that you will never support would be a good step into what imo is the right direction. |dorftrottel |talk 16:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of clear-cut RfAs, and by that reasoning I don't see that I'd ever need to change my stance on this. If, for some reason, in a year's time Wikipedia had a serious shortage of admins, and an equal shortage in possible candidates, and if Shalom (or any user in the same position) seriously appeared to have changed, then my stance might change. However, I cannot see this ever being the case, hence I stick to my statement that I don't think ex-vandals should ever be made admins. _TheIslander 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. But to finish your last post: ... Even though that might mean someone will return as a new user, which would then mean that we had a non-(or at least not openly-)repentent vandal with admin rights, in other words: Someone vandalised, and then chose to escape the additional scrutiny of the community. I respect your opinion as such, but maybe you'll yet think it over and consider the possible consequence to which it, again, might (since it's really just a distant possibility) contribute. |dorftrottel |talk 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

UBU

I'm an alumni of Bradford who's still involved in the union, hence me not 'voting' i just want to make sure it's a fair hearing (it probably will be deleted) and while I think that a Student Union is notable it's down to the process what happens. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough - I certainly appreciate you being honest. I still maintain that it's not notable - with due respect, it's just another students' union: they're all much of a muchness, and I really don't feel that they are notable enough for their own articles (with one or two exceptions). Thanks for taking the time to put your point across ;). _TheIslander 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I could point out is is unusual for the non-hierarchical structure (i.e. no president &v.p. not sure if its unique, but defiantly unusual) but I do take your point, notability is a matter of opinion & picking where to draw the line some times hence the debate being a fair way to decide. I would ask if you could help me improve the tone of the article if you feel its advertorial, I do bits as I come across them but know there are still some in there. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

Done. Nominator specified it should have no category, so it was excluded from the category that admins check! --Dweller (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See ...

"See here." does not imply to me that you're moving the discussion of the subject. I read that, and would still read something like that, as "you don't need to report him; look, I've done it." If you want to say that this is a better place for the discussion, I think you should say that explicitly; e.g. "Future discussion on user issues should go here."--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Tom Burrows

Sorry it took me a while to reply, but I've not been online for several days. My reply is on my talk page here. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Students' Unions

Given that a batch of SUs you have nominated have now been deleted, are you planning to recommend the remaining SUs in line with policy? --Sce1313 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you take a look at the AfDs, only one or two of them went through as deletion. The majority resulted in no concencus, with one or two keeps. I may suggest others for deletion in the future, as I see fit and if I have time. I certainly feel that there are others that should be put through the process. _TheIslander 02:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Help! I'm a Teenage Outlaw

My original source for the episode I added was watching it, but doing a search 'teenage outlaw new guy' brings up some hits showing it in TV listings, and an online Episode Guide. Is that enough for the episode to stay in the article. I mean, is there source for the other episodes there at all?--172.142.161.105 (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Basil Brush

OK I take back the shouting comment - you were not using caps. You still came across that way though. Does "pontificating" sound closer to the mark? As for "matters relating to improving the article" are you suggesting I would have been better to have added a link to the photo of Mortimer in the main page of the article? I deliberately didn't do that as I felt the quality of the image was not good enough to warrant a major link. However where I've placed the comment does answer another's query and enables others to at least see one of the other foxes even if only at low resolution so it IS relevant to the article.81.86.230.16 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely - relevant to the topic of the article it may be, but relevant to improving the article it wasn't. Talk pages are for just that, so, for example, discussions on how to improve the Basil Brush article belong on it's talk page, whilst discussions on Basil Brush itself do not. _TheIslander 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bentall Centre

The Bentall Centre towers in Vancouver are some of the most prominent buildings on the Vancouver skyline (Towers 4 and 5 are among the city's 10 tallest), and major Canadian companies like Bank of Montreal and TD Canada Trust have their Vancouver head offices located in these towers. Also, Google searches for "Bentall Centre" Vancouver returned 22,300 pages; "Bentall Centre" Kingston returned 12,700.

The Bentall centre redirect to Bentalls was also nearly non-utilised; the only pages that linked to Bentall centre prior to my move were these two user talk pages (User talk:Canuck89 and User talk:Buchanan-Hermit/Archive 2), who themselves were discussing the redirect itself instead of the mall. This suggested to me that the page move would have been non-controversial.

Admittedly, the page move was done rather hastily, and may not have followed through the correct procedures. I would not object if you were to ask an admin to move the page back to Bentall Centre (Vancouver) and turn Bentall Centre into a dab page. - Hinto (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your reply too. :) - Hinto (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.